INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions has penalized Cheyney University of Pennsylvania for major violations in the institution's athletics program. The violations include ineligible participation by football student-athletes, unethical conduct by the former head football coach, as well as a failure to monitor and lack of institutional control. Penalties for the violations included placing the university on three years of probation, a vacation of records, and a one-year show-cause penalty for the former football coach, among other sanctions.

The Committee on Infractions stated in its report that the case, "involved a serious breach of ethical conduct legislation by the former head coach and the failure of a long-time Division II member institution to have in effect a viable, comprehensive compliance system administered by knowledgeable personnel."

The most serious violations took place in the football program and were knowingly committed by the former head coach. During the 2004 football season, six ineligible student-athletes, five of whom were partial qualifiers, received extra benefits in the form of travel expenses while traveling to away games. Further, four of the six ineligible student-athletes

competed in one or more of the away contests and another impermissibly participated in practice. These violations were committed at the direction of the former head coach, who had been told two years earlier after similar violations occurred that ineligible student-athletes were not allowed to travel to away contests. One of the student-athletes stated that he confronted the former head coach on at least one occasion when he was told to travel to an away game even though his name was not on the list of eligible student-athletes. According to this student-athlete, the former head coach told him to "shut up," get on the bus and prepare to participate. Another student-athlete also stated that, prior to a game, the former head coach had him switch his jersey number to that of an eligible student-athlete before he participated in the game.

The committee also found the university failed to withhold two student-athletes from competition during the 2005 football season even though it had acknowledged they had previously competed in away games while ineligible. This was despite the fact the school was told by the NCAA enforcement staff that the young men would have to go through the reinstatement process before becoming eligible to compete. The university did not seek reinstatement before allowing them to compete in the 2005 football season. Further, the university again failed to withhold one of these student-athletes from competition without initiating the reinstatement process during the 2006 season.

The committee found the university failed to monitor the conduct of its coaches and the administration of its athletics programs during the summer of 2002 through September 2006, based on a lack of system for effectively monitoring various aspects of its athletics program. These aspects included participation by ineligible football student-athletes, purchasing health insurance for student-athletes, failure to provide the required graduation data and official visit limitation information to prospective student-athletes, failure to track countable athletically related activities, publicizing oral commitments from prospective student-athletes, failure to notify student-athletes regarding financial aid renewal, and the provision of benefits to enrolled student-athletes by individuals whose actions triggered the booster status.

The university did not agree that all of these violations were major infractions. However, the committee noted in its report that "while standing alone many of the violations would be considered secondary, they are all major as part of the cumulative case."
The committee also stated in its report that it is "dismayed that this case continues the recent trend of Division II member institutions, either through inadvertence or ignorance, failing to devote the necessary resources to effectively operate a Division II athletics program. The committee also strongly reiterates…that member institutions have the duty to establish and maintain thorough and comprehensive campus-wide compliance systems operated by trained and competent personnel. To fail to do so will, as in this case, result in the committee concluding that that institution failed to monitor its athletics program and lacks institutional control, and will be followed by the imposition of appropriate sanctions."

In determining the penalties, the committee considered the university's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee, are as follows:

The Division II Committee on Infractions consists of conference and institutional athletics administrators, faculty and a member of the public. The committee independently adjudicates cases investigated by the NCAA enforcement staff and determines appropriate penalties. The committee's findings may be appealed to the Infractions Appeals Committee.

The members of the NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are Bruce Kirsch, chair, athletic director and vice president, Franklin Pierce College; Larry Blumberg, faculty athletics representative and chair of math department, Washburn University of Topeka; Jean Paul Bradshaw II, attorney, Lathrop & Gage L.C; Sherry Kennemer, senior woman administrator and associate director of athletics, University of North Alabama; and Wendy Taylor May, assistant athletic director, University of California, San Diego

-30-